header-logo header-logo

06 May 2022 / Sarah Moore , Stuart Warmington , Alexandre Predal
Issue: 7977 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Product liability: more David, less Goliath?

80831
Is there hope on the horizon for product liability claimant lawyers? Sarah Moore, Alexandre Predal & Stuart Warmington examine some promising developments
  • Recent rulings in product liability group actions in both the Netherlands and France may provide hope for greater resource efficiencies for claimants facing deep-pocketed defendants.

With recent rulings in France, litigation afoot in the Netherlands, and obiter comments in the Lloyd v Google decision, there may well be reason to hope that the David vs Goliath dynamic that has defined the EU product liability landscape for the last 20 years is in flux, perhaps promising a brighter future for Big Pharma accountability across the EU and the UK. This article looks briefly at those ‘points of light’.

First some background: briefly put, the facts are as follows—the Product Liability Directive (Council Directive 85/374/EEC) (PLD) emerged newly minted from the European legislature in 1985 and was thereafter adopted into the domestic laws of all EU nations; in the UK, in the form of the Consumer

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll